1 2025:CGHC:29820 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 25 of 2020 Kaliram Sarang S/o Shri Hiraram Sarang Aged About 65 Years Village Nakti Sammanpur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Plaintiff versus Sukhvanteen Bai W/o Late Shri Rameshar Satnami Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Nakti Sammanpur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : ……….. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment On Board 02.7.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.9.2019 (Annexure-A/1) passed by Second Additional District Judge, Raipur (CG) in Civil Appeal No.118A/2017, whereby judgment and decree dated 10.11.2017 passed by Seventh Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No.38A/2013 in favour of the appellant/plaintiff herein allowing his civil suit, has been set aside. BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.07.04 10:22:35 +0530 2 (For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status before the trial Court) 3. Facts of the case, in brief are that, the plaintiff filed civil suit stating inter alia that he purchased land along with kacha house (for short ‘the suit property’) already constructed on it, situated at Village Nakti PH No.112, Abhanpur area 19 x 17 sq. ft from defendant on 06.10.1976 for sale consideration of Rs.200/- and thereafter he was in possession over it. But in the year 2008, the defendant tried to dispossess him forcefully from the suit property by dumping building material to construct house over the aforesaid land, whereas, the plaintiff has been in continuous possession since 1976. Since the defendant had interfered with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, he filed civil suit for grant of permanent injunction against the defendant in respect of said property. 4. The defendant filed written statement and denied the pleading of the plaintiff. 5. Learned trial Court on the basis of the pleading of the parties and evidence adduced by them, granted decree in favour of the plaintiff. However, on an appeal filed by the defendant, learned first appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this, the plaintiff has filed instant second appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff had purchased the suit land along with kacha house vide Ex-P/1 and his possession has been proved by Sarpanch vide Certificate (Annexure-P/3) and receipt (Ex-P/4). Possession of the plaintiff has also been proved by him in his deposition, which has also been supported by Rajlal (PW-2) and Dhaniram Sarang (PW-3). These evidence were properly considered by the learned trial Court, but the learned first appellate Court overlooking these 3 evidence, has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court only because Sale deed (Ex-P/1), by which the plaintiff had purchased the suit property is an unregistered document. Learned counsel further submits that though it is an unregistered document, but the plaintiff is in possession over the suit property since 1976, which has been proved by ocular and documentary evidence by him, but the same has not been considered by the first appellate Court. Hence, judgment passed by the first appellate Court, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, is perverse and illegal and against the evidence available on record. Therefore, he prays that the appeal may be admitted for hearing on the proposed substantial question of law. 7. Undisputedly, the defendant was the owner of the suit land and the kacha house constructed on it. Plaintiff Kaliram (PW-1), his witnesses Rajlal (PW-2) and Dhaniram (PW-3) have deposed in their deposition that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit property and kacha house, which he had purchased vide Annexure-P/1 “ बिक्री मकान का" on 06.10.1976 for sale consideration of Rs.200/-. 8. As per Section 54 of the the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 17(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards can be transferred only by a registered sale deed. But in the instant case, Ex-P/1 “ बिक्री मकान का" is an unregistered deed, therefore, neither it transfer title to the plaintiff nor it transfer valid possession or what so ever. To prove the possession, the plaintiff has filed Certificate (Ex-P/3) issued by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nakti, Vikas Khand Gharsiva Distt. Raipur, but it has no validity and it is not a valid document to prove possession over the land. As also Ex-P/4, which is said to be a receipt issued by Food Inspector, but it has also not been proved in accordance with 4 law by examining the issuing authority. No valid document has been filed by the plaintiff to prove his possession over the suit property. 9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.9.2019 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Raipur setting aside judgment and decree passed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 10.11.2017 in Civil Suit No.38A/2013, as such, I do not find any substantial question of law to be involved in the instant case. 10. Thus, since no question of law is found to be framed, the appeal is dismissed at the motion stage. 11. The parties to bear their own costs. 12. A Decree be drawn accordingly. 13. Records of both the Courts below be returned forthwith. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini